Supreme Court Makes Interim Protection From Arrest Granted To YouTuber Abhishek Upadhyay Absolute, Quashes Notice To 'X' Over Road Rage Case

The Supreme Court has made absolute its earlier interim protection from arrest granted to investigative YouTuber Abhishek Upadhyay, staying his arrest until further orders in connection with a road rage case registered by the Ghaziabad Police.

It also quashed a police notice issued to the platform X (formerly Twitter) that had demanded extensive digital and personal data predating the alleged incident, holding that investigative agencies cannot bypass principles of proportionality and privacy safeguards.

On August 25, 2026, the Court had granted interim protection from arrest to Upadhyay. The Court directed that no coercive action be taken against Upadhyay in the current FIR or any potential future FIRs, while instructing authorities to supply him with a copy of the FIR registered at Indirapuram Police Station.

Upadhyay flagged alleged irregularities in the handling of donations at Ayodhya's Ram temple.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered, "This court, while issuing notice, has already directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner and that he will cooperate with the ongoing investigation...The order dated 25th August 2026 read with the order dated 7th September 2026, is made absolute. The arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed until further orders."

Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai appeared for the Petitioner

The plea by Upadhyay claimed that the FIR is based on concocted allegations against him and is an attempt to harass him for his independent journalistic work.

In the plea, he has contended that the FIR copy has not been supplied to him and that the police were forcing nearby shopkeepers to delete the CCTV visuals of the relevant time. Upadhyay sought quashing of the FIR, or in the alternative, its investigation be transferred to an independent agency other than the Uttar Pradesh Police.

The FIR has been lodged against Upadhyay in Ghaziabad over an alleged road rage incident, which he has claimed was planted in connection with his reporting on alleged corruption in Uttar Pradesh.

The petitioner also alleged that he abused and threatened the complainant and made remarks after inquiring about his name and caste.

In the compliance affidavit, filed by Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, stated that after registration of FIR on 20th August 2026, efforts were made to locate the petitioner on 20th, 21st, and 22nd August 2026, but he could not be traced. Thereafter, the offending notice was issued to the nodal officer of X for the limited purpose of tracing the petitioner's whereabouts and facilitating the arrest sought in the investigation.

The Court ordered, "It would thus be seen that the explanation given by Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, in his affidavit, that information was sought primarily to trace and arrest the petitioner is in somewhat contradiction with what is from is in contradiction with the contents of the notice dated 22nd August 2026. Be that as it may, no confidential or personal information of the petitioner can be obtained for the period prior to the date of occurrence, even with respect to the information post the FIR, cannot be sought unless adequate measures to safeguard the privacy preservation of persona cannot be sought unless the principles of proportionality are adhered to, and less intrusive measures available are not exhausted, and where the alternative measures to take the investigation to a logical conclusion are found to be inadequate."

The court added that no such plea was raised on behalf of the respondents. "In these circumstances, the notice dated 22nd August 2026 issued by the local police to X is hereby quashed. Any information utilized taken pursuant thereto or otherwise shall not be utilized against the petitioner", it added.

Furthermore, noting that the petitioner's vehicle had been seized during the inquiry, the Court ordered its release within two days. The petitioner was granted the liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court under appropriate statutory remedies for assailing the charges in accordance with law.

Upadhyay, who runs a YouTube channel, claimed a police team reached his residence late on August 20 and told him that a case had been registered at Indirapuram police station following allegations of road rage and abusive behaviour.

According to Upadhyay, the alleged incident took place on August 18 near Shipra Mall in Ghaziabad, when a motorcyclist allegedly touched his car.

He said the man subsequently called the police emergency helpline 112 and an FIR was registered later. He alleged that the police team had come to his residence possibly to arrest him, and he requested Ghaziabad police to release CCTV footage of the alleged incident.

According to his plea, Upadhyay has previously reported on alleged irregularities involving donations to the Ram temple in Ayodhya and alleged corruption in the Uttar Pradesh government.

The Court had also refused to grant any relief in a plea filed by former Delhi Mayor Farhad Suri seeking an FIR against Uttar Pradesh Police officials and asked him to approach the jurisdictional police station by filing an application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS.

Suri alleged that UP Police officers raided his Nizamuddin East residence in Delhi without a warrant while searching for YouTuber Abhishek Upadhyay regarding a road rage accident case. Upadhyay also recently reported on alleged thefts involving Ram Mandir donations.

Cause Title: Abhishek Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh [W.P.(Crl.) No. 339/2026]